Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
It is not clear what is meant by “the obstacle is enabled” in the phrase “said spacer is configured and arranged such that in an event of an elastic deformation of said spacer a contact between said cutting tool and the obstacle is enabled”. It is being interpreted to be that the spacer is deform when in contact with an obstacle.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poole et al. (US6722114) in view of Christopherson (US4030277).
With regard to claim 1, Poole et al. discloses inventions substantially as claimed, for example, a portable work apparatus (10) having a front housing (11-typical lawn mower design with U-shaped frame shown in Figure 1 that supports the motor/blades. It is in front of a user when in use); an output shaft (18) protruding from said front housing; a main body (24) connected to said output shaft (see Figure 1); a cutting tool (58 -Figure 5) arranged on said main body; a drive motor (M); said main body together with said cutting tool being drivable via said drive motor so as to rotate about a rotational axis of said output shaft; said cutting tool defining a cutting circle with a cutting radius rotating in a cutting plane about said rotational axis.
Poole et al. does not discloses the spacer; however, Christopherson discloses that the use of deformable spacers are known the lawn mower art for protecting the user while also not interfering with the maneuverability of the mower. For example, Christopherson discloses a spacer (17, 20,16 as shown in Figures 1 and 3-6; this structure creates and maintains a desired amount of space) wherein the spacer is arranged on said front housing (see figures 1 and 3 attachment at 14) and having a contact region (16 or the end connect of 20 near 22 or one sided of 20); said spacer being elastically deformable (see Figures and paragraph 7); said contact region having a maximum distance (see figures), measured radially, to said rotational axis of said output shaft; said maximum distance being greater than said cutting radius of said cutting tool in a first, non-deformed state of said spacer (see Figures); said spacer being elastically deformed in a second state (see Figure 4) such that said maximum distance is at most the same size (as shown in Figure 4 the spacer does not pass within housing/wheels into the cutting area of the housing near the blades and therefore is “at most a same size” since is outside the cutting area of the blades) as said cutting radius, and said spacer being arranged completely outside said cutting plane of said cutting tool. Therefore, it would have been obvious to include the spacer of Christopherson with the lawn mower of Poole et al. in order to provide protection without any reduction in maneuverability.
With respect to claim 2, the modified device of Poole et al. discloses the spacer with a maximum elastic deformation corresponding to at least 5% of said maximum distance of said contact region from said rotational axis. In the alternative, even if it is argued that the modified device of Poole et al. lacks the specific elastic deformation where the spacer corresponds to at least 5% of the said maximum distance of said contact region from said rotational axis. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use an elastic deformation of the spacer corresponding to at least 5% of said maximum distance of said contact region from said rotational axis in order to ensure there is enough protection but at the same time does not interfere with the cutting action it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art moreover, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to claim 3, the modified device of Poole et al. discloses said spacer includes a carrier (17) and an end piece (16 or the end of 20) fastened to said carrier and said contact region of said spacer is formed on said end piece.
With respect to claim 4, the modified device of Poole et al. discloses the carrier is rigid and said end piece is elastically deformable (column 2).
With respect to claim 5, the modified device of Poole et al. discloses the carrier and said end piece are made of different materials (different materials because they are not all deformable).
With respect to claim 6, the modified device of Poole et al. discloses the same invention substantially as claimed except for the end piece being made of an elastomer; however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the end piece out of elastomer material or flexible material in order to prevent injury to a user should they step on the end piece since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
With respect to claim 7, the modified device of Poole et al discloses the end piece is exchangeable on said carrier (the end piece is capable of being moved and replaced).
With respect to claim 8, the modified device of Poole et al. discloses the end piece is held on said carrier via a latching connection (see figures and paragraph 5).
With respect to claim 9, the modified device of Poole et al. discloses the same invention as substantially similarly explained above but with the interpretation that the spacer (16,17,20,21,23) has a contact region (16), carrier (17) and an end piece (21) fastened to the carrier (they are connected) and said contact region of said spacer is “formed” (connected) to the end piece wherein said end piece is “formed” from a ring and extension (includes a ring, 21 and a rod in the center to connect it to the housing).
The use of the product-by-process terms, e.g., “formed” do not serve to distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art other than the “structure” implied by the process.
With respect to claim 14, the modified device of Poole et al. discloses the invention substantially as claimed including an end piece that is configured as a bracket (end piece 16 is bracket shaped and has a connection portion).
With respect to claim 15, the modified device of Poole et al. discloses the invention substantially as claimed including the spacer is held pivotably on said front housing.
With respect to claim 16, the modified device of Poole et al. discloses the invention substantially as claimed including a receiving arrangement (21) disposed on said front housing; and, said spacer being held releasably (it is capable of being removed) on said receiving arrangement.
With respect to claim 17, the modified device of Poole et al. discloses the invention substantially as claimed including the end piece being held on the carrier at a connecting section. It is not clear if the distance is at least 33% of the maximum distance of said contact region from said rotational axis; however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the distance of at least 33% of the maximum distance of the contact region form the rotational axis in order to ensure there is enough protection but at the same time does not interfere with the cutting action it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art moreover, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to claim 18, the modified device of Poole et al. discloses the same invention as substantially similarly explained above including the spacer being configured to elastically deform when it contacts an obstacle (see figure 4, the spacer deforms when engaged with the ground).
With respect to claim 19, the modified device of Poole et al. discloses the same invention as substantially similarly explained above including a spacer that deforms when in contact with an obstacle (ground).
With respect to claim 20, the modified device of Poole et al. discloses the same invention as substantially similarly explained above including the spacer being fixed to the housing.
With respect to claim 21, the modified device of Poole et al. discloses the same invention as substantially similarly explained above including said cutting tool is a cutting thread (58).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-12 appear to be allowable over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Boyer D Ashley whose telephone number is (571)272-4502. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Santiago-Cordero, can be reached at 571-272-7839. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724
